Terry Aliano v. Michael Aliano (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE ALL PENDING PENDENTE LITE MOTIONS

A review of the record reveals that the parties were married on February 24, 2007, and the plaintiff wife instituted proceedings for dissolution of marriage on March 1, 2010.   The case has been pending for nearly 18 months and there have been 113 pendente lite motions filed.   The plaintiff wife discharged her initial lawyer on or about September 2010.   Her second lawyer was disqualified after a lengthy proceeding on January 24, 2011.   She was given an additional $10,000 to retain new counsel who appeared on or about February 7, 2011.   This attorney's motion to withdraw was granted on or about June 13, 2011, and the plaintiff is now self represented.   On June 23, 2011, at a hearing, wherein the plaintiff was seeking additional attorneys fees, this court observed that the plaintiff has had three attorneys and that the family had consumed in excess of $111,000 in legal fees and spent nearly 15 months in pretrial litigation.   The motion was denied and the parties were ordered to select a pretrial settlement conference date and trial dates.

Thereafter, the parties appeared at a short calendar regarding the plaintiff's many pending motions and they were ordered to select a special assignment.   The plaintiff was cautioned that she would be given a three-hour hearing to present her pretrial motions and that she should marshal her time carefully and prioritize the motions to be heard at that time and that any other motions would be heard at the time of trial.   The parties appeared before the undersigned on August 9, 2011 at 2 p.m. The plaintiff was again cautioned repeatedly to prioritize her pretrial motions as she would only be given three hours to address them.   The court relies on the recent decision, Corriveau v. Corriveau, 126 Conn.App. 231 (2011), for the proposition that the trial court remains in control of trials and may direct and focus litigants in accordance with the normal procedures and rules.

Emphasizing the right and need of the trial court to control the proceedings, the Appellate Court held:

The court must have control over the proceedings, and the court properly ended the defendant's questioning of the plaintiff and the defendant's testimony on redirect after several warnings for her to comply with the rules of practice ․ [A]though we are solicitous of the rights of pro se litigants ․ [s]uch a litigant is bound by the same rules ․ and procedure as those qualified to practice law ․ For justice to be done, however, any latitude given to pro se litigants cannot interfere with the rights of other parties, nor can we disregard completely our rules of practice.

Id., 238.

On August 9, 2011, the court noted that the plaintiff had pending the following motions:

Motion to Recuse Counsel (198),

Motion to Transfer out of Norwich (199),

Request for Fees Regarding Depositions (200),

Request for Fees Regarding Business Analysis (201),

Motion for Contempt Regarding Personal Property (202),

Motion for Contempt Regarding Production of Documents (203),

Motion for Attorneys Fees (205),

Motion for Contempt Regarding Cell Phone (205),

Motion for Production of Documents (207),

Motion to Escrow 2010 Tax Refund (211) and

Motion to Extend Trial Dates (213).

The plaintiff was cautioned repeatedly to marshal her time and to prioritize the motions which she wished to address as the court would enter orders at 4:50 p.m. relative to all pending motions.   The plaintiff spent the majority of the allocated time addressing her motion for contempt regarding the production of documents (203).   At approximately 4:30 p.m., the court directed the parties to address the Motion to Extend Trial Dates (213) as the trial was scheduled for August 25 and 26.

At 4:50 p.m., the court ruled, denying the Motion for Contempt and granting the Motion to Extend Trial Dates to dates during the third week of September.

Thereafter, the court considered the balance of the pending motions sua sponte.

Motion to Recuse Counsel (198).   The plaintiff seeks to recuse defendant's counsel apparently so that both parties will be self represented.   The court is aware of no authority to support this proposition and the motion is denied.

Motion to Transfer Case (199).   The plaintiff seeks to transfer this case to another judicial district fearing that the defendant's family has “far too strong of ties to Norwich.”   If this were a jury trial, that claim might conceivably have some measure of strength.   No claim has or conceivably could be made that the judges in this judicial district have ties to the defendant or to his family.   The motion is denied.

Motion for Fees Regarding Depositions (200), and Motion for Fees Regarding Business Analysis (201) and Motion for Attorneys Fees (205).   This court previously heard and denied the plaintiff's Motion for Additional Fees on June 23, 2011.   Inasmuch as the plaintiff has had three different attorneys and nearly 18 months to litigate pretrial issues wherein the parties have expended in excess of $120,000, those motions are denied.

Motion for Contempt Regarding Production (203).   The plaintiff has failed to sustain her burden of proof and that motion is denied.

Motion to Escrow 2010 Tax Refund (2011).   The plaintiff addressed this motion arguing that the defendant was likely to receive a significant 2010 tax refund and squander said funds.   The court denied the motion but reminded the defendant in open court that the automatic orders preclude either party from squandering significant assets and that the court would issue sanctions if, at the time of trial, it was demonstrated that either party had violated the automatic orders.

Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (207).   The court previously considered the plaintiff's request for production of documents and issued its decision on June 27, 2011.   The court considers this motion as an attempt to reargue and that motion is denied.

Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt Regarding Cell Phone (206) and Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt Regarding Personal Property (202) can be heard at the time of trial.

Regarding the Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Trial Dates, the court orally granted said motion and ruled that the parties would try this case during the third week of September 2011.   Thereafter, the court discovered that the family relations officer who conducted the custody evaluation was being laid off on or about August 26, 2011, and would not be available for trial in September.   Wherefore, the court will bifurcate the trial such that the custody and visitation issues will be heard on August 25 and August 26 as originally planned and the financial orders including alimony, child support and property distribution will be heard in September at dates to be selected by the parties.

Shluger, J.

Shluger, Kenneth L., J.